Re: Let's Do the CoC Right

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 6:25 AM, David E. Wheeler <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>
wrote:

> Fellow PostgreSQLers,
>
> I can’t help that there are a whole lot of white guys working on this
> document, with very little feedback from the people who it’s likely to
> benefit (only exception I spotted in a quick scan was Regina; sorry if I
> missed you). I suspect that most of you, like me, have never been the
> target of the kinds os behaviors we want to forbid. Certainly not to the
> level of many women, transgendered, and people of color I know of
> personally, in this community and others, who have. If those people are not
> speaking up here, I suspect it’s because they don’t expect to be heard. A
> bunch of white guys who run the project have decided what it’s gonna be,
> and mostly cut things out since these threads started.
>

I am married to someone from a very different culture and have now lived
and worked in three very different cultures and continents. One problem I
have seen is that once one starts making these distinction "white guys"
then the rhetorical framework is complex enough it turns to benefit the
same powers it is supposed to restrict.

> But a *whole* lot of thought has gone into the creation of CoCs by the
> people who need them, and those who care about them. They have considered
> what sorts of things should be covered, what topics specifically addressed,
> and how to word them so as to enable the most people possible to feel safe,
> and to appropriately address issues when they inevitably arise, so that
> people continue to feel safe.
>
> So I’d like to propose that we not try to do this ourselves. Instead, I
> propose that we take advantage of the ton of thought others have already
> put into this, and simply:
>
> * Follow the example of many other successful communities (Swift, Mono,
> Rails, and 10,000 others) and adopt the open-source Contributor Covenant,
> unmodified.
>
> http://contributor-covenant.org
>
> Does the phrase "solution in search of a problem" come to mind?

> * Put this document in the root directory of the project as
> CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md, so that anyone who wants to contribute can. It should
> also be listed on the main web site and referenced from appropriate places
> (such as the mail lists pages).
>
> * Spell out a policy and procedure for enforcement and include it as a
> separate document, again in the Git rep and on the site. The reporting
> address should be included in the Covenant. The Covenant web site has links
> to a number of existing guides we ought to crib from.
>

The problem isn't as I understand it an enforcement problem. It is the
fact that in a genuinely diverse group of people, there are going to be
major differences in perspective and it is very easy to find something to
be offended at. If the goal is a frankly Western-exclusive view of
diversity which includes some perspectives but is hostile to other
perspectives then it is entirely self-defeating.

As I have mentioned before people in many countries may (legitimately!) see
folks pushing GLBT rights as an effort to corrode the traditional
multi-generation family structures which both care for the elderly and
provide business continuity in a family business (i.e. self-employment,
small business, unincorporated, nonindustrial) economy. And therefore we
white guys can then justify our racist paternalism using our perception of
their homophobia (without even trying to understand where they are coming
from!).... My point here isn't on the wisdom of policies but on the nature
of discourse and the point that the quest to appear diverse to some
interests requires squashing diversity in other dimensions (particularly
where ideology and culture come together).

Because I see things from multiple cultural perspectives let me give a
hypothetical that I think shows how these things conflict. I might be
getting quoted sources slightly wrong. My point here is to highlight
differences in perspective and how people may find this exclusionary.

Suppose someone in the community (we will call this Person A) adds an email
signature which says:

"Marriage is an institution for the benefit of the spouses, not for the
purposes of binding parents to their children." -- Ted Olsen arguing for
same-sex marraige.

Suppose person B takes offense, and changes the email signature to read:

"
*If mutual consent makes a sexual act moral, whether within marriage or
without, and, by parity of reasoning, even between members of the same sex,
the whole basis of sexual morality is gone and nothing but misery and
defect awaits the youth of the country..." -- Mohandas Gandhi*

Person A appeals to the core community saying that person B's signature is
hostile to gays and lesbians (and it is). Person B responds that person
A's signature is deeply culturally insensitive and undermines any hope of
cultural diversity on the list (and it does). Person A points out that
they consider India a horrible abuser of gay rights, and person B points
out that person A just doesn't even try to understand the Indian culture
enough to say anything constructive.

Now, if it is only these two people, then a reasonable answer is to say to
them "Grow up and embrace diversity of viewpoint. It's just an email
signature for crying out loud."

But suppose the feud continues and other people are uncomfortable as well?
Then I hope the answer would be "our community is neither competent nor
interested in resolving this argument, but it is making people
uncomfortable. If you want to argue about it, take it off list. Otherwise
we consider both email signatures to be disruptive."

Surely part of the point of this exercise is to keep the community from
being used as a weapon in a political argument, particularly over issues
which are controversial globally.

>
> Best,
>
> David
>
>

--
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more